Talk:Epistle to the Galatians

NPOV dispute

User:CheeseDreams added the NPOV disclaimer to this article, which says "Please see its talk page." So what elements are disputed? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

This has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Title of this article

This article should be renamed "Epistle to the Galatians". All the other epistles have similar titles (Epistle to the Philippians, etc.). Right now, Epistle to the Galatians redirects to Epistle to Galatians, and this should be reversed.

Does anyone disagree?

By the way, I'm not volunteering to do this myself. A conscientious title-change requires changing all the pages that link to the old name. Currently there are 109 links to "Epistle to Galatians" and only 18 to "Epistle to the Galatians"! Lawrence King 1 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

yes i do disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.192.133 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This has since been done. -- Beland (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Authorship of Galatians

"From the mid-20th century to the present, virtually all Biblical scholars have accepted that Galatians is a genuine writing of Paul. See Authorship of the Pauline Epistles for more details." Lawrence King has tacked this onto the article. Does anyone think that this is an honest statement of the current view? --Wetman 9 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)

This is certainly honest even if it's wrong. If you take a look at the edits I have made to any religion-related pages, I am a fanatic for NPOV.

An excellent starting point when researching this is "Introduction to the New Testament" by Raymond Brown. Surveying the literature produced by academic scholars, Brown estimates that "80 to 90 percent" of scholars believe that 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus are not by Paul (pg. 654), and that 80% of scholars believe Ephesians is not by Paul (pg. 621). In other words, Brown is no "fundamentalist" and he is trying to represent a scholarly consensus, not just his own views. Yet he is not aware of any scholars today who dispute the authenticity of Galatians (pg. 468).

Do you know of any scholars since 1920 who think Galatians is pseudepigraphal? Lawrence King 9 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

Rather than just announcing the decision, couldn't someone more knowledgable than I give the article a sentence or two just explaining how this consensus has been reached, for those of us from less authoritarian backgrounds. Why and how the conclusion has been reached is often more telling for us than the conclusion itself. Brown's assessment would make an excellent addition to this article. When doubters did doubt Galatians, what raised their doubts? Does Brown discuss them? Those "percentages" don't inspire confidence: if something has been "voted down" in this fashion, may we know what the question was? The linked article Authorship of the Pauline Epistles also just announces the verdict and does not in fact produce any of the promised details. --Wetman 21:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully a third person will join in. In the meantime, I'll attempt to answer your question.

Ferdinand C. Baur was one of the pioneers of the historical-critical method. The main methods and criteria he introduced are still in use today. The most important of these are:

Language and style: the vocabulary, sentence structure, etc. For example, Ephesians uses extremely long complex sentences, unlike many other letters of Paul.

Contents and theology: What does the writer believe about the Law? ("abolished" in Ephesians, but not in Romans). What is the main emphasis? (faith, in Romans & Galatians; proper behavior in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus). Who was Jesus? Is Jesus returning soon? (1 Thess seems to say yes; 2 Thess seems to say no.) Are the leaders of the church important? (Galatians seems to disparage the church leaders; 1 Timothy teaches that bishops and deacons are important.)

Historical setting: We know quite a bit about Paul's life in Acts of the Apostles. Does this letter fit in with that? Galatians, Romans, the Corinthian letters, the Thessalonian letters fit very well in the framework of Acts. On the other hand, Titus and 2 Timothy mention visits to Crete and Nicopolis, plus an extra visit to Ephesus, and these aren't mentioned in Acts.

The difficult thing is to use all of these together. For example, suppose two letters use similar vocabulary. Does that mean they were both written by Paul? Or maybe they were both written the same non-Paul writer?

Around 1840, Baur concluded that only four of the letters bearing Paul's name were genuine. But Baur was only one person, and his application of his own methods was not perfect. Hilgenfeld (1875) and Holtzmann (1885) used the same methods as Baur, but reached different conclusions: they each concluded that exactly seven of Paul's letters were genuine. This wasn't a rejection of Baur, but rather a further development of his methods. Scholars had spent four decades analyzing the letters for vocabulary and history, and had learned more about them. In the late 20th century, scholars even did computer analyses of the vocabulary (what verbs, articles, terms were used). Although the letters aren't long enough for a truly reliable statistical study, the statistics suggest that the list of seven genuine letters is probably correct.

So today, nearly all scholars in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, and the Low Countries agree that the letters 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are genuine. These are usually called the "undisputed" letters in the scholarly literature.

Why these seven? They all share common themes, and a common emphasis, and common verbiage. Paul's teaching about the Jewish Law, about Jesus, about faith, and about other subjects in these letters is quite similar. They all fit into the journeys depicted in Acts.

Most scholars think the Pastorals (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus) were not written by Paul, and most scholars also think Ephesians was not by Paul. Even if you don't read Greek, you can read these letters in a fairly literal English translation (like the [New] Revised Standard Version or the [New] Jerusalem Bible), and you will see some of the differences.

Colossians is more disputed, since it has some features in common with Ephesians and other features in common with Philemon. 2 Thessalonians is an odd case, and is very disputed -- in terms of its vocabulary, it is very similar to 1 Thessalonians. But in terms of its theology, it seems to contradict 1 Thess about whether Jesus is returning soon. (It's possible to reconcile the two letters' teaching, so not everyone accepts this argument -- but on the surface, 1 Thess seems to say that Jesus will return soon with no warning, and 2 Thess seems to say that Jesus won't return until after a number of historical events take place first. It was mostly in reaction to this that some Protestants in the 19th century invented the idea of the "Rapture", which basically means Jesus returns twice -- once secretly and once publicly -- thus reconciling the two letters. There are other explanations as well, but many historians simply say that there is a contradiction here.)

This entire procedure is subject to criticism. It's possible that Paul didn't dictate his letters literally, but just gave a loose outline to his scribe -- in that case, a different scribe's writing would sound different, but by ancient standards Paul would still be considered the author because the ideas were his. It's possible that Paul went on an additional journey after the end of Acts, and the Pastoral letters refer to events during that journey. And it's possible that a really good forger could have imitated Paul's style perfectly, or that Paul's own style could have changed as he got older. It's possible his own views could have changed, so even if two letters disagree with each other they could both be by Paul. Based on these arguments, some critical scholars, such as Luke Timothy Johnson, agree with Baur's methods and yet still believe that Paul wrote all 13 letters bearing his name. But in general, Bible experts are divided into two groups: those who believe for scholarly reasons that Paul wrote the seven "undisputed" letters, and those who believe for religious reasons that the Bible can't be in error when it uses Paul's name and therefore all 13 letters are written by him. (Lawrence King)

Now that's what we should be reading in the article itself! --Wetman 08:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Authorship of the Pauline epistles now has extensive details, and the coverage in this article has been improved. -- Beland (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

unclear on antinomianism

I think that these two conflict a bit:

"He reminds the Galatians of the "law-free"[citation needed] gospel (see also Antinomianism), he has preached to them."

"Chapter 4 then concludes with a summary of the topics discussed and with the benediction, followed by 5; 6:1–10 teaching about the right use of their Christian freedom. For example, it is clear that some took "freedom in Christ" as justification of antinomianism."

- The second seems to assert that he is responding and correcting those who followed Antinomianism, whereas the first asserts that he preached it.

--Tmcw 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This has since been rephrased. -- Beland (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

3:28

Should mention verse 3:28, which has been used in several contexts in recent decades... AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sociology Research

What research is this? Castravalva (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "sociology research" no longer appears in the article. -- Beland (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Authenticity

I think the most recent change is unnecessary, or at the very least needs to be re-worded. A Georgian (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you A Georgian (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates?

In this whole section there is not mentioned any actual dates for the corresponding theories. Even if they are speculative I think it would be helpful to put what years are usually offered as being the time of composition.--76.31.242.174 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added what I could find. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this sentence: "The events mentioned in Galatians 2:1-10 fit perfectly to this part of Acts" in the section "The Earliest Epistle." This is an opinion (though it may be a very good opinion). As such I think it needs to be rephrased by citing a scholar. Otherwise it's essentially original research by whoever wrote this sentence. Unless I hear an objection then, I'll change it to read "the events mentioned in Gal. 2:1-10 seem to fit this part of Acts well." It would be better to cite a scholar, but I don't know who thinks this! :-)

Elsteve9 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an internal inconsistency: "Scholars generally date the original composition to c. 50-60 A.D. [4]" and "Biblical scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s.[5]" 41.232.212.31 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I intend to remove this statement. Today I sat with some academic sources (books) and fleshed out some of the different theories regarding the dating of Galatians, which make it clear that there is no consensus which "Biblical scholars agree..." implies. That agreement doesn't exist! You can find dates ranging from 47ish to 58ish. If no one objects, I intend to fix this on 1/24/12. That is a week from today.

Elsteve9 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Acts 6:22

Doesn't exist. I deleted that reference in the North Galatians section; maybe whoever wrote that meant Acts 6-7 in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.247.217 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no hint in the letter of a developed organization within the Christian community at large.

Why is this sentence under a section entitled "authenticity"? This is an assertive statement of a theological dispute that has nothing to do with the authenticity section. Even if it was an uncontested chronological marker, the way the sentence is written does not lead the reader to distinguish the sentence as such. I am deleting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The rewording is better, but can you find a Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic source that says there was no developed organization within the church in the lifetime of Paul? I will wait a few days for a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no stake in the statement, it is just that I could see why it was there. If it is vulnerable because it is unsourced, I agree with you. That is not the only unsourced item. I think that once upon a time the statement may have been sourced, but the source removed during its revision history. A Georgian (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the source of the statement is: Revision as of 08:55, 29 July 2005 (edit) (undo)Wetman (talk | contribs) (disambiguations; locating Galatia more accurately; reducing multiple linkings;)A Georgian (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is now in the intro, and has a cited source. -- Beland (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Re "Galatians" redirect

Why does the word "Galatians" redirect to the page on the Gauls, when obviously the vast majority using this term are looking for this page?--Bigh Whigh (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Galatians has since been turned into a disambiguation page. -- Beland (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Language

What language was it written in originally? I guess Greek, but Paul was a Roman Citizen, so Latin is not implausible; also the Galatians apparently had their own Gallic language. Even if the answer to this question is trivially obvious to ancient historians and Biblical scholars, it would be nice to have it stated here for the benefit of those who don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.201.28 (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know this too, it should list the original language of Papyrus 46 and the years in which it got translated to other languages. HearthHOTS (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The article now clarifies it was written in Koine Greek. -- Beland (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Judaizers"

Is the use of this term in the article borderline offensive? Would scare quotes help? The Wikipedia entry on the word states: "... the term Judaizers is typically used as a pejorative." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B017:19D0:F057:99E1:1B1F:42C2 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The term Judaizers is a technical one in Bible study; I don't see how one could dispense with it A Georgian (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epistle to the Romans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Class project?

@2020jlc, JLeonard01, Victoria Shen, 15choneycutt, Erik755, and Ewang57: are you working on this as a class project in a university course? If so, can you ask your instructor to visit teach.wikiedu.org to get your class registered? Wiki Education has a lot of support materials for students doing assignments. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is a class project about Wikipedia its administration is very, very poor. Wikipedia strongly discourages single-purpose accounts, yet that is entirely what is going on here. Wikipedia strongly encourages good edit summaries, yet these are almost entirely absent. There wasn't even an "advance notice" a few days ahead; the first the rest of us knew about was a sudden avalanche of edits. This does not endear it to the established community of Wikipedia editors. This assumed "class project" (if it is such) is very poorly managed. The teachers/lecturers have significantly mis-advised their students. Whatever the pass/fail of the content, the project-admin seems badly substandard. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Following the be bold principle, I'm going to propose a complete revert to the state just prior to this edit spree. And we should do this very soon (within two days?), before other genuine editors make "business as usual" changes that would be caught by such a move. Of course, if an established editor volunteers to do a careful, thorough, line-by-line analysis through the entire change-set, correcting any problems, they are welcome to propose that instead! Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a class project, and the students have done a fantastic job improving the content of what was previously a very idiosyncratic, strange entry on this epistle. I understand your complaint that edit summaries were not included, but a call to revert to the prior state makes no sense whatsoever. The article is far stronger now than it was before, with good sourcing. I would be happy to do a line edit, but to suggest a revert is certainly overkill. These students have all created new accounts for this assignment, and they will now all be prepared to be contributors to Wikipedia. Let's not discourage them by arbitrarily revering their helpful changes.Worldinfrontofthetech (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Worldinfrontofthetech: Are you the instructor? Can you reach out to my colleague Helaine Blumenthal (Helaine (Wiki Ed)) at helainewikiedu.org to get you into our system? We offer training modules, assignment scaffolding, and a host of support resources to help you avoid challenges like this in the future if you plan to teach with Wikipedia again. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm inclined to think there was a net addition to the quality of the page. While obviously a non-smooth implementation, I'm not sure reverting all the edits is going to ultimately lead to better outcomes here or elsewhere on the project. At this point the editor might be SPAs, but many editors join to fix something on a specific article. If they're going to be editing other pages, then they'll stop being SPAs quite quickly.

@Worldinfrontofthetech:, if you're the instructor, can you let them know about a need to include edit summaries, as well as a preference for secondary (rather than primary) sources? [EC add-on: probably best you reach out to LiAnna's colleague first] Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)